Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

FCC: Cable ISPs Need Not Give Competitors Access 266

Posted by timothy from the quadruple-edged-sort dept.
michael_cain writes: "Multichannel News is reporting that the FCC has ruled that cable companies providing high-speed data service do not need to provide access to competing ISPs. Depending on whom you believe, this should lead to either (a) more rapid rollout of cable modem service since the cable companies don't have to share the revenues or (b) cable companies limiting the content and services you can reach over their IP infrastructure." And an Anonymous Coward writes: "Excite is running an article indicating that the FCC has exempted cable internet companies from having to share their lines to competition. Unlike telephone companies, cable companies are required only to share their lines when specifically told to by the government. As a condition of the AOL Time Warner merger, that company was forced to offer its consumers a choice of Internet service providers on its high-speed lines. Thursday's vote, classifying cable Internet as an "information service" rather than a telecommunications service that is subject to the open-access provision, makes sure that cable companies won't have to share anytime soon."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC: Cable ISPs Need Not Give Competitors Access More

FCC: Cable ISPs Need Not Give Competitors Access

Comments Filter:

  • a difference? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PopeAlien ( 164869 ) on Thursday March 14, 2002 @03:43PM (#3163848) Homepage Journal
    Is there really a difference anymore between data and telecommunications? How can the definition of the pipe be so important?

    • Re:a difference? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by lawyamike ( 199551 )
      You are correct, of course. The type of pipe is important only as a vestige of history. Namely, the telephone companies (or company) laid their pipe as public utilities regulated by the federal government, and the cable companies did so as franchisees of various state agencies more recently.

      Convergence is making all of these evolutionary tics look silly. Personally I root for the pipe that deregulates the quickest.

    • Re:a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by StevenMaurer ( 115071 ) on Thursday March 14, 2002 @03:52PM (#3163917) Homepage

      Completely!

      A data service is one that gave enough campaign donations to the Bush campaign. A telecommunications service is one that didn't. ;-)

  • Well then... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by swordboy ( 472941 ) on Thursday March 14, 2002 @03:43PM (#3163851) Journal
    Then the FCC needs to set customer service guidelines. There is no incentive for the cablecos to screw over their customers since they have a monopoly in many areas.

    The other day I spent 3 hours trying to get my fucking address changed. My bill still goes to my old residence (the modem works at the new house). I finally gave up because they are so damn stupid. It isn't worth my time.

    Give me a choice or implement some sort of law that required them to resolve my issue in a timely manner or pay me for my time.

    Damnit
    • Amen! No one is ever responsible for anything at the cable company. Since most of the time, they are the only game in town, they can draw employees from the bottom of the food chain and unleash them on paying customers.
      • > No one is ever responsible for anything at the cable company. Since most of the time, they are the only game in town, they can draw employees from the bottom of the food chain and unleash them on paying customers.

        So, in answer to the original poster's question - there is no difference between a cable company and a telco. ;-)

    • There is no incentive for the cablecos to screw over their customers since they have a monopoly in many areas.

      Quite the opposite. Since the cable companies have a monopoly in most, if not all areas, they can screw their customers over without fear of losing them to another cable company.
      • It's not funny, this is serious! I demand you mod this down immediately!!! It's not funny!!!
      • In theory this is true. In the past this has been true. But it seems more and more, competing companies compete with their lawyers and marketing, not with their engineers, prices, or service. The lawyers get rich. The MBAs get rich. The engineers get frustrated, the prices go up, the service deptarment doesn't have resources to fix anything, and the customer STILL doesn't have a better option. (They just think they do cause the TV ad told them so)
    • Where do you live? In my area the cablecos marketshare is being dramatically eroded by satellite services (including mid-speed 2-way as well), and many of the cable cos have latched onto high speed internet access as one of the selling points to encourage people to keep cable (it worked. I love some of the satellite services and features, but I also like high speed cable internet access). Additionally high speed DSL access has made massive inroads, and 2.5G wireless access is looking to extend the competition. 10 years ago it'd be fair to say that cablecos had a monopoly, but I really don't think that is true for the majority of people.

      On top of all of that, a lot of the time that people are bitching about something they're bitching without reason (and as stated following, I include myself in that category). For the past 2 weeks I've been griping to anyone that will listen about how my cable modem was giving back 600ms ping times and horribly unrealiable throughput. Turns out that it was that the cable I ran got crimped in a door and must be noisy now, as replacing it gave me those 10ms pings I know and love.
    • That's not normally the FCC's bailiwick, which is to deal with more industry-specific and technical issues. If they bill you wrong, or screw up the address, then there is plenty of other recourse. Forget that they are a cableco. They are somebody to whom you owe money. State laws generally apply, and whether they're a cableco or a bakery or a lawn service, payment issues are covered by consumer protection. Your state Attorney General's office might help.

  • totally backwards (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ethereal ( 13958 ) on Thursday March 14, 2002 @03:46PM (#3163870) Journal

    Y'know, I don't care about the cable regulation one way or the other as much as some people, but I think the FCC has really missed the boat on their classification of the service here. What people have demonstrated that they want, time and time again, is connectivity. We want a high-speed telecommunications service. If we want an information service too, we'll get a web browser, or something like that. We don't need the FCC to decide for us what we want; we know what we want.

    It's the bundling of connectivity with services that is slowing all of these rollouts, IMHO - if we could get bandwidth from one company, and mail/news/web access from another, then the market would quickly determine the best bandwidth providers as well as the best mail/news/web access providers. This FCC action is limiting the scope of such unbundling, which seems like a step backwards to me.

    • Re:totally backwards (Score:2, Informative)

      by billnapier ( 33763 )
      Y'know, I don't care about the cable regulation one way or the other as much as some people, but I think the FCC has really missed the boat on their classification of the service here. What people have demonstrated that they want, time and time again, is connectivity. We want a high-speed telecommunications service. If we want an information service too, we'll get a web browser, or something like that. We don't need the FCC to decide for us what we want; we know what we want.

      I have to disagree that the FCC missed the boat on their classification. Based on current regulation (Telecom Act of 1996 [fcc.gov]), Cable-Modem service is an Information Service!


      INFORMATION SERVICE.--The term ''information service'' means the offering of
      a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing,
      or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing,
      but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation
      of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.

      The FCC is just interpreting the laws that Congress has passed! And I agree with their interpretation. But that doesn't mean I agree that Cable companies should be able to keep their networks closed. I think that Data Services (people who deliver raw bandwith) should (probably) be regulated like Voice traffic and enforced competition. But the FCC really isnt' the one to blame, it's Congress. Write your Congress-person!

    • The Status Quo Ante prevails simply because the internet is a cultural tsunami that existing institutions are incapable of servicing or managing. The cultural forces that are pushing the internet will reinvent most aspects of culture but the status quo ante everfearful of the new must struggle to redefine the future in the guise of the past and face known devils rather than face the unknown. When the going gets weird and 'the weird turn pro' the most part of society begins a cautious advance with it's back turned to the future.
    • They don't care about 'We'. They care about Joe Average. 'We', the /. readers, know what we want and want to get it ourselves. Joe Average wants "that new-fangled internetty thing that uncle Jeb done got" or "to keep up with the Jones, who have the internet on their computer! We are better than them, so we'll get it too. Were do I buy the internet?" Joe Average wants one company to supply everything. Joe Average _needs_ one company to supply everything, because he doesn't want to spend hours and hours reading technical manuals to figure out how to do it all himself. And I really don't blame him.

  • Surprised? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So one of the conditions of the AOL-Time Warner Merger was that they shared their lines with other ISPs and now this ruling says they do not have to? Something seems very fishy to me

    • umm, ya got it backwards (Score:5, Informative)

      by GMontag ( 42283 ) <gmontag AT guymontag DOT com> on Thursday March 14, 2002 @04:10PM (#3164018) Homepage Journal
      So one of the conditions of the AOL-Time Warner Merger was that they shared their lines with other ISPs and now this ruling says they do not have to? Something seems very fishy to me

      This ruling is that cable providers do not need to share lines UNLESS they have been specifically told to do so, like AOL-Time Warner was told as a requirement of their merger.

      So, in this case, the "big mean corp" is the one forced to share.

      From the portion of the article fully visible above:
      Unlike telephone companies, cable companies are required only to share their lines when specifically told to by the government. As a condition of the AOL Time Warner merger, that company was forced to offer its consumers a choice of Internet service providers on its high-speed lines.

  • Law by analogy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Thursday March 14, 2002 @03:48PM (#3163882) Homepage Journal
    The problem with technology and law is that we're dealing with new things. The government doesn't have specific rules for how to handle things, so it makes analogies to existing technologies. Those analogies are never perfect.

    In this case, is letting another company offer ISP services over your cable lines analogous to letting another company offer TV channels over your cable lines, or is it analogous to letting another long distance carrier complete calls to your phone customers.

    From my perspective, I don't see as this is a bad ruling from a legal perspective.

    • Re:Law by analogy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Thursday March 14, 2002 @04:13PM (#3164044) Journal
      In this case, is letting another company offer ISP services over your cable lines analogous to letting another company offer TV channels over your cable lines, or is it analogous to letting another long distance carrier complete calls to your phone customers.

      Errr, you are aware both of these things happen? Cable companies are obligated to provide local channels on their cable service, and whenever you call someone on the other side of the country, a different long distance service completes the call. By your own argument, then, this ruling makes no sense.

      You started off well, by ranting about the evils of analogies, but fell into the the trap yourself when you tried to draw some of your own.

      Let's stay out of analogies. This ruling hands all the power to the local monopoly. This never works out well, and I don't see why this will work out well this time, either. (This isn't an analogy, this is an observed historical pattern.) Higher prices and lower service, here we come!

    • Re:Law by analogy (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 4of12 ( 97621 )

      problem with technology and law is that we're dealing with new things.

      Exactly.

      It looks so stupid to me that the rulings have come out differently, largely as a result of myopic readings of earlier rulings on the telco industry before the advent of digital technology.

      You can see where they're going to have to revisit and reverse the rulings because of two possible developments:

      1. The cable company ISPs customer's start using voice over IP for a gradually increasing share of their telephone service.
      2. The telephone company DSL lines get upgraded to the point where they can carry the odd digital cable channel.

      Since I'm on a roll right now, I'll just throw in my complaint that FCC regulation and sale of the EM spectrum does not appear to go into the visible. Wouldn't you rather that lighted billboards pay for the privilege of radiating into the environment?

  • So what? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Enry ( 630 ) <enry@@@wayga...net> on Thursday March 14, 2002 @03:48PM (#3163884) Journal
    I guess as someone who can run his own servers (and does so) off a cable modem, I can't see why I would want to use ATTBI or Earthlink or AOL over my cable line. We've already seen what happens to DSL when Verizon points at Covad who points back at Verizon. There's the slight possibility that Earthlink (for example) might have a nicer TOS than ATTBI, but I doubt it.

    All *I* want from a provider is the following:

    Pipe (fast is preferable)
    If it's broke, go fix it.
    Don't bother me with anything else. I don't want your news feeds, I don't want your portal site, I don't want your e-mail offers, I don't want your e-mail server.

    So far, ATTBI is doing most of that. I have to prod them a few times if something gets real strange, but otherwise I've been very satisfied with the service I've received over the past 4 years.

    • Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by clump ( 60191 ) on Thursday March 14, 2002 @04:11PM (#3164022)
      All *I* want from a provider is the following:


      Pipe (fast is preferable)
      If it's broke, go fix it.
      Don't bother me with anything else. I don't want your news feeds, I don't want your portal site, I don't want your e-mail offers, I don't want your e-mail server.

      Does having more competition or less competition help you get what you want? If you have only one seller, is that seller more or less likely to care about your needs?

      Cable companies have enjoyed government protection for years. They are at a level they would not be at had the government not interfered. Funny though, its ok to take a government handout, but not ok to accept that there may be consequences to that handout?

      • But we've seen what can happen by introducing competition into an existing monopoly. DSL is pretty much dead unless you're an ILEC.

        I'm not saying competition is bad, I'm saying that this competition won't get me anything with the laws and regulations as they are.

    • Re:So what? (Score:3, Informative)

      by jc42 ( 318812 )
      > So far, ATTBI is doing most of that.

      So have they stopped blocking ports 25 and 80 in your neighborhood? Around here, those are blocked. You can't run your own SMTP or HTTP servers, at least not on the standard port.

      Presumably this is because they're an "information service", by which they mean that if you start supplying information over their lines, you're a competitor and they'll shut you down.

      Hereabouts, if you want to put your family pictures up on your own web site, you're in violation of the TOS. You're supposed to put them on the web space that they give you "for free".

      Remember a few months back when people found that MSN was taking things like pictures from customers' web sites and using them in ads?

      "All your information are belong to us."

      • So have they stopped blocking ports 25 and 80 in your neighborhood?

        This doesn't make sense to me. If they were really blocking your outbound traffic on port 80, you wouldn't even be able to send http requests from a browser. Are they forcing you to use their proxy server?
        • If they were really blocking your outbound traffic on port 80...

          Inbound traffic is what they block.

          C//
      • They have not been blocked in over 6 months. I run HTTP, STMP, and SSH servers on my local box and it can be seen everywhere.

  • It sucks, but there IS a difference (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Logic Bomb ( 122875 ) on Thursday March 14, 2002 @03:49PM (#3163890)
    Though the eventual effect of the ruling may stink, it can't be denied that in light of existing regulations the decision-makers have a point. The primary use of the lines in cable systems at this point is indeed information delivery, whether it be TV signals or data, and there are no open-access laws for info delivery services. It's sort of like the ruling declaring PayPal is not a bank noted in an earlier Slashdot story today. What these decisions recognize is that the underlying legal structure needs to be updated to better recognize new technologies. I think we tend to expect these pseudo-legislative regulatory agencies like the FCC to be the top-level policy makers in their domains. In reality, the Congress needs to deal with these issues so that the regulatory agencies can put fair rules in place.

    • The primary use of the lines in cable systems at this point is indeed information delivery, whether it be TV signals or data, and there are no open-access laws for info delivery services.

      The same is true of telephones and other communications devices. Strictly speaking, it's more than delivery when the data flows in two directions - that's what we call communication. I think it's pretty clear that information delivery is an attempt to recategorize something we already have laws to govern.

    • The Absurdity Is In the Distinctions We Make (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Thursday March 14, 2002 @04:03PM (#3163984)
      Though the eventual effect of the ruling may stink, it can't be denied that in light of existing regulations the decision-makers have a point. The primary use of the lines in cable systems at this point is indeed information delivery, whether it be TV signals or data, and there are no open-access laws for info delivery services.

      Once the information becomes bidirectional it can no longer reasonably be called "delivery."

      But then, the entire notion of applying one set of rules to communications links that carry primarilly voice, vs. another set of rules for (often the same) infrastructure that primarilly carries digital (computer) data, vs. yet another set of rules for (often the same) infrastructure that primarilly carries video/entertainment data demonstrates how completely head-up-their-ass our government regulators really are.

      It is absurd.

      ISPs should operate under the same rules as Telcos and Cable providors, with the same priveleges (common carrier status) and the same requirements (allowing access by competitors to their wire/fibre/subspace beakon). Ideally, the latter should be nationalized (a dirty word, I know, but better than the mess we have now) and treated like a public road, with ISPs, Cable providors, and Telcos accessing the hardwire infrastructure under the same conditions and rules. Then, and only then, will we have real competition, and a flourishing market, in all of these arenas.
      • ISPs should not be forced to operate under the same guidelines as common carriers because they are not carriers. ISPs do not carry traffic, telecom companies carry traffic. An ISP just provides a POP, a transition point between the virtual and real, for the customer. Almost all of an ISP's service is virtual and thus cannot carry traffic which would make regulating them as a carrier ridiculous.

        Saying the status of "delivery" is contingent on the bidirectional nature of the data path is ludicrous. The cable companies provide the carrier equipment for data. Actually carrying the data makes them a delivery service.
    • The primary purpose of cable lines was information delivery, before we started using them to carry internet traffic.

      The very networking functionality being "regulated" here puts the lie to your assertion. Delivery is no longer the only significant purpose of cable, and it's not in any way the purpose of cable broadband.
    • I see your point but the problem is " cable internet companies from having to share their lines to competition."
      The area of the service they are regulating here is entirly communicative. If they told the cable companies not to offer cable service to competing cable companies you'd have a point. However, here the fact that the primary use of the lines is information oriented (TV) is trivial. All I can derive from this is the government apparently considers the internet to be an information service and phone calls are the only reason the baby bells have to share. This stance of the internet being primarly as information service is in contradiction to even AOL adds.

  • My Prediction (Score:3, Interesting)

    by toupsie ( 88295 ) on Thursday March 14, 2002 @03:50PM (#3163893) Homepage
    (b) cable companies limiting the content and services you can reach over their IP infrastructure

    This will never happen or if it does, it won't last long. The greatest way to lose a customer is to limit their choices with your product. The second my cable company says I can't visit xyz.com over their IP network, I get a new provider and tell my friends about it. Since, I don't think my response will be unique, I doubt that sort of policy will last for the cable company.

    However, I don't think this will cause a rapid rollout of IP over cable just a raising of the rates charged to customers.

    Cable is a dead tech anyways ready to be thrown on the trash heap with ISDN. I am sure the future of communications for the home user will be wireless. Just look at the telephone. There are now more cell phones than POTS phones in the US.

    • Re:My Prediction (Score:2, Informative)

      by KingKire64 ( 321470 )
      I largely agree with you analysis however i dont think you are right about a dead technology. I have to use cable at my new apt b/c dsl is not avialible. b4 i was paying $50 a month and my dl speed peaked at 80 K/s. Im paying $40 per month now with cable and am getting upwards of 250 K/s(Any time of the day). With a comparison like that i dont think cable is going to die anytime soon unless DSL providers get thier act together.
    • You can't lose customers if there's no one to switch to. Since the FCC regulates regional cable monopolies, that only leaves the phone company, which may or may not offer comparable service.
      • DSL if you are lucky, and Satelite too.

        I want to know what the heck is in the FCC's head that they think Monopolies are a good way to go for things like this?

        I think they keep thinking back to the turn of the century, when there were 50 phone companys and each had their own line running through town.

        to bad the FCC to to stupid to realize that technology has moved beyond the one carrier per line limit.

    • Re:My Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)

      by brogdon ( 65526 ) on Thursday March 14, 2002 @04:12PM (#3164040) Homepage
      "This will never happen or if it does, it won't last long. The greatest way to lose a customer is to limit their choices with your product. The second my cable company says I can't visit xyz.com over their IP network, I get a new provider and tell my friends about it"

      That's just the point. You won't be able to. Cable companies have a monopoly in their area because of the significant barrier to market involved with planting cable in an area. There's not enough ROI to justify the huge expense of laying the pipe when you're only going to get half the customers (on average).

      Thus when your cable company (who probably runs their own ISP like Comcast or has an exclusive agreement with one partner ISP) says "You can't run this P2P app, or go to these questionable sites or newsgroups", you're going to either deal with it, or start hooking a phoneline back into your PC.

      And yes, DSL is an alternative, but it's not available everywhere, so many people will have to deal with the possibility of choosing between a crappy cable monopoly and a dialup.
      • Thus when your cable company (who probably runs their own ISP like Comcast or has an exclusive agreement with one partner ISP) says "You can't run this P2P app, or go to these questionable sites or newsgroups", you're going to either deal with it, or start hooking a phoneline back into your PC.

        I don't like the cable monopoly either. However, if cable companies are too restrictive with Internet access, people will be more motivated to switch.

        With wireless networks it is now possible to provide high speed internet, without having to actually run a wire to you house. There is an opportunity there...

    • wrongo. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by El Camino SS ( 264212 )

      There are now more cell phones than POTS phones in the US.

      Riiiiiiight. I believe you.

      I am sure the future of communications for the home user will be wireless.

      Yeah, once you figure out a scheme to keep information in the open air safe, secure, impossible to have multipath issues, clean signal strengths 100% of the time, and a way to cram fiber bandqwidth quality routing hubs over the EM spectrum WHICH BY ITS VERY NATURE IS LIMITED.

      Good luck. I would suggest you smoke more drugs.
    • I am sure the future of communications for the home user will be wireless.

      No way. Information theory just doesn't support this. Cell phones need precious little bandwidth. You can't say the same of data feeds which, while may not use gobs of bandwidth on average, chew it down at an insane pace in bursts.

      C//

  • why must this go on... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Ed Bugg ( 2024 )
    Arrgghhh, this actually burns me... I can't believe that cable companies are still allowed their monopolies in this day and age... With companies like Charter Communications predicting and running ads that they will be able to do everything for you in the video/audio spectrum in the near future (including phone service), how can you not classify them as a telecommunications company.

    I feel that more than likely the only reason they haven't rolled out phone service is that they, don't want to be classified and regulated as a telecommunications service, and stuff like this only just keeps them going.

    How long will it be before the is no difference between what "real" telecommunication companies and cable services. It's just the wire and the protocol that runs over it, but on top of that it's just data to both of them and they are providing the same services.

    The best thing a "Bell" company can do right now is setup a partnership with a video distribution company (Blockbuster) and start rolling out "Video on Demand" services. I don't think it would be hard for something like DSL connections to split off a few channels for video.
  • Thereby proving, yet again, that our government's regulatory and judicial agencies are, in their current form, unable to resist influence by sufficiently large, wealthy, and "powerful" companies which they are supposed to police.

    Oh, you can make all kinds of arguments about how competition on these kinds of networks doesn't really make sense, but these are primarily engineering arguments. Yet the best decision seems to be to allow competition, because the overwhelming, extremely repetitive evidence is that allowing too much vertical integration in infrastructure industries like telecom results in abominable prices and worse service.

    Or perhaps somebody actually believes this semantic hair-splitting nonsense about about cable being an "information" carrier rather than a "telephony" carrier?
    • Warner is the ONLY company mentioned in this post that CONTINUES to be regulated.

      So, I am missing how your pointing to them in your subject line has anything to do with your first statement:

      Thereby proving, yet again, that our government's regulatory and judicial agencies are, in their current form, unable to resist influence by sufficiently large, wealthy, and "powerful" companies which they are supposed to police.

      Perhaps if you can revise your statement and use a company that has actually been able to buy influence (sorry, don't try Enron, all of their influence was with a prior administration, the current beurocrats ignored them and ignored the beurocrats they replaced last year) your post might read a little better.
    • Oh, you can make all kinds of arguments about how competition on these kinds of networks doesn't really make sense, but these are primarily engineering arguments.

      And they are misapplied arguments to boot. Comeptition with respect to roads and highways doesn't make much sense either, unless you want to pave the planet and have ten streets servicing your driveway.

      The solution is simple. Make the road a public commons, accessible to all under the same terms and paid for as a public works, and allow competition to flourish where it does make sense: with car companies, shipping companies, taxicab companies, bicycles, etc.

      Substitute "cable," or "fibre" for road and "ISP," "Telco," and "Cable Providor" for car companies, shipping companies, etc. and you get the idea.

      The only way we are NOT going to have monopolies is by nationalizing the infrastructure and allowing business to compete for our patronage using the common, public wire on an equal basis.

  • What should the policy be? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Thursday March 14, 2002 @03:54PM (#3163922) Homepage Journal
    It seems the editorial position here is that cable companies should be forced to allow other ISPs access. I'm not sure that's the right way of doing it.

    The real question is whether you define operating the cable network (the physical network) as a separate business from providing data over that network. With current cable systems, the business of providing content and the business of providing connections are one and the same. At some point, it might become practical to change that, much like some states have done with electricity. You would get a separate bill for having a live cable connected to your house from the bill for whatever television content you received, quite possibly from separate companies.
  • Hmmm. Between the recent law that will efectively allow Baby Bells to kill off their DSL competition and this decision that shuts competition off from cable networks, I see the great convergence for broadband will be coming sooner rather than later.

    Traditionally cable companies provided an optional service - cable TV (not really as critical as the phone). I have to wonder when cable companies will be forced (again) to open up their broadband networks to competition since their technology isn't substantially different to the enduser than DSL is (although usually much faster). If or when that happens, here's hoping that the prices actually go down - so far massive telecom deregulation has had the market effect of raising prices. Gotta love paying $27 a month for basic telephone service with touchtone...

    • Its not deregulation that makes it $27 a month. Its the fact that other regulations prevent competitors from coming in and running their own lines to attempt to break into the market. It's the fact that cell phone minutes get cheaper and cheaper, and its IS getting more and more expensive to support the old land line format as more customers drop it (my ex-wife's apartment complex has almost 30% without local phone service). Let them charge $27 a month. Eventually, a competitor will come, and when they do, you'll say goodbye to your local phone company, maybe forever.
  • ... from an administration that derailed the m$ antitrust trial?

    The current administration is so pro-monopoly that it boggles the mind...

  • Ironic (Score:5, Informative)

    by mjh ( 57755 ) <(moc.nalcnroh) (ta) (kram)> on Thursday March 14, 2002 @04:12PM (#3164032) Homepage Journal
    Just today I called up Earthlink [earthlink.com] to switch from my Time Warner Road Runner account to their competing service which exists entirely as a condition of the merger between the AOL & TW.

    The Earthlink has a whole bunch of advantages of the RR account.

    • It's cheaper
    • It provides free, nationwide unlimited dialup
    • It allows me to run servers
    • It has no installation cost
    • and it will soon have reasonably priced static IP addresses (additional $15/mo for Earthlink vs additional $150/mo for RR!)

    This is what competition does. I find it short sited that the government grants a monopoly to the cable company by not letting anyone else lay cable, but then doesn't turn around and enforce shared access! It's just luck that AOL/TW is being forced to open up their access.

    • Choice: blame your town (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TheMCP ( 121589 ) on Thursday March 14, 2002 @04:42PM (#3164188) Homepage
      The town I live in has choice of three phone companies, two cable companies (both of which offer cable modems), and a variety of other ISPs which offer various forms of connection including DSL or dual ISDN.

      Funny, but our rates are lower than surrounding communities. Imagine that.

      When I called the major monopolistic cable company and had problems with their customer service, I just called their competition instead and got more channels for a lower price.

      All of this happened because immediately after cable was deregulated, when the cable company's town monopoly contract came up for renewal, the town said "no, we're allowing competition now."

      If you don't have competition in your town, blame your town. Call your local representatives and demand to know why you don't have choice. Nag them when the monopoly contracts for the utilities come up. Get your neighbors involved. You might be surprised.
    • I find it short sited that the government grants a monopoly to the cable company by not letting anyone else lay cable...

      They don't. For example, here in San Diego, any cable company can compete with the other cable companies. Theoretically. But of course they _don't_. It would be too expensive, because by definition if you do this, you decrease the cable-length:customer-density ratio.

      C//
  • ...except inconsistencies, found between the lines of legal documents. They are the ONLY thing that matters in today's Business world - and since money is the only thing that talks these days - the only things that matter period.

    great.

  • The biggest thing holding broadband back is local regulation. More than 90% of cable companies have their local monopoly because the local government has created it. So you want to start your own cable company? Good luck trying to get the city to sell you a franchise. Local governments don't like the competition because they get a cut of the money the local monopoly makes. Competition would mean less money for them.

    Want to string up your own telephone lines? Sorry....you're not allowed to do that either. Hey they're just trying to "protect the public."

    This is not a national issue. Its 1000's of local governments standing in the way.
    • You're correct. But really, the regulation or lack thereof doesn't actually change anything. Here in San Diego, cable companies are free to compete across eachother's territories. None of them do, however. If you contemplate the situation for a while on your own, you'll see that it simply makes little sense for them to do so: competition decreases the wire:customer density, and that increases expenses notably.

      C//
      • And nothing prevents you from getting a few investors in your town and starting your own cable company. Get a few C-band satellite dish receivers, and distribute. If its too expensive to do it and sell service cheaper than the one who is servicing you now, there's your answer. If its cheaper, then why aren't you turning a profit?

  • If you have any doubts.. (Score:3, Informative)

    by ftobin ( 48814 ) on Thursday March 14, 2002 @04:35PM (#3164144) Homepage

    If you have any doubts on which way the decision should have gone, you should read The Future of Ideas [stanford.edu] by Lawrence Lessig [stanford.edu]. In it, he explains how we accidentally got to this system of telephone companies being required to not control the content of the lines, even though they control the wiring and switches, but on the other hand, cable companies are allowed to completely control the wiring, connectors (cable boxes), and content.

    The internet is the way it is (great, that is), due to lack of control over the content. For example, I can talk however I want to another computer on the internet, just as long as I abide by a few rules (e.g., using IP). The potential for innovation is great when you have an open-content and open-controls (routers, firewalls) system.

    At line point AT&T owned the entire telephone network, being granted a government-approved monopoly. At this time, however, you weren't allowed to connect non-approved devices to any part of the network. This was done to ensure the 'stability' of the network (the trusted-client ideology). When the monster was broken up, these restrictions were removed, and this helped ensure the Internet could grow over the telephone lines (e.g., everyone could connect their own modem without needing approval).

    With cable companies controlling every aspect of communication, however, the potential for innovation is extremely limited. Having to ask for permission to communicate on a network entirely destroys the freedom to experiment and try new ideas. This is why cable companies should be regulated like telephone companies.

    Quoting from the book:

    The argument of the cable industry in favor of monopoly was simple: We need, they argued, incentives to risk the investment to build out cable TV. That build-out would be worth it to us only if we could be certain to recover out investment. This certainty would be adequately provided if we had complete control over the programming on our network. If we get to pick and choose the shows we run, and we get protected monopoly status in the local markets we run cable for, then we will have sufficient incentive to build out cable to secure our needs.

    Not a bad deal, if you can get it. And even though "every major policy on how cable should be regulated recommended that cable operators be required to provide at least some degree of non-discrimatory access to unaffiliated program supliers," Congress and the FCC ignored these recommendations. Cable was given control over the physical infrastructure that build their network and over the code layer that made their network run.

    I could go on and on, but I strongly recommend you read "The Future of Ideas". Lessig is technically-aware, but he writes to layman. He is a master of the arguments for freedom in cyberspace.

    It's interesting to also note that DSL, since it is deemed a communications network, is regulatory-required to be 'open'. This means the telephone companies are forced to allow other ISP competition to use DSL lines.

    • At line point AT&T owned the entire telephone network, being granted a government-approved monopoly.
      Can we, at least, nail this myth on the head? AT&T never had a government-approved monopoly. What it had was a practical monopoly, competition was close to impossible because to compete, one had to dig up roads to areas where you might, in a fair world, get 50% market penetration, and where, without the active, supporting, help of AT&T you would have a network that would initially have nobody phonable.

      AT&T accepted regulation, given it knew it faced potential structural changes or even wholesale nationalisation if it was seen by the voters, and thus the government, as anti-consumer. But whenever the government saw an opportunity to introduce competition with AT&T's active help, the government did step in and force the issue.

      The reason for the successful break-up of AT&T wasn't that it had unlawfully obtained a monopoly or that the government had "given" it one and had changed its mind, it was that the government wanted to make use of new technologies to encourage competitors, and needed AT&T to proactively help those competitiors to work. Needless to say, Ma Bell wasn't happy about this, and stonewalled.

      Having a monopoly because you're first, and it's just too difficult for others to get into the market without you actively helping, is very different from having one because the government has declared you the only rightful operator (as in, say, the Post Office, ironically constitutionally mandated so those pesky libertarians can't do a thing about it hehe, or through ownership of a patent, or whatever), or because, as in Microsoft's or Standard Oil's case, you've cut off the air supply to competitors, blackmailing your suppliers and customers to prevent potential competitors from being able to get off the ground.

      • Can we, at least, nail this myth on the head? AT&T never had a government-approved monopoly. What it had was a practical monopoly, competition was close to impossible because to compete, one had to dig up roads to areas where you might, in a fair world, get 50% market penetration, and where, without the active, supporting, help of AT&T you would have a network that would initially have nobody phonable.

        Ah, but AT&T did have the force of law behind its control. This is more precisely what I wanted to get across. Quoth Lessig from "The Future of Ideas" (pg 30):

        For much of the twentieth centurey, it was essentially illegal even to experiment with the telephone system. It was a crime to attach a device to the telephone system that AT&T didn't build or expressly authorize. In 1956, for example, a company built a device called "Hush-a-Phone." The Hush-a-Phone was a simple piece of plastic that attached to the mouthpiece of a telephone. Its design was to block noise in a room so that someone on the other end of the line could better hear what was being said. The device had no connection to the technology of the phone, save the technology of the plastic receiver. All it did was block noise, the way a user might block noise by cupping his hand over the phone.

        When the Hush-a-Phone was released on the market, AT&T objected. This was a "foreign attachmen." Regulations forbade any foreign attachments without AT&T's permission. AT&T had not given Hush-a-Phone any such permission. The FCC agreed with AT&T. Hush-a-Phone was history.

        This was not only a government-approved monopoly, but it was even a government-sponsored monopoly. AT&T's rules protecting itself had the force of government law.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • If the FCC hadn't existed (and I'm not even sure the FCC was relevent in this case), it would have been just as able to enforce this regulation through standard contracts, etc.

            This is, as you suggest, the critical issue. The idea is that the contract should not be as powerful as it is allowed to be. There are restraints that nullfy many terms of contracts depending on where you live (e.g., state by state laws can require certain warranty terms no matter what the contract says), contstitutional-rights relevance (you cannot contract away your rights), etc.

            I'll agree I may have mistated that the government sponsored the monopoly directly, but it did sponsor it indirectly through inaction by allowing terms of contract that violate the senses (mine, at least). The FCC actively made a decision to allow the AT&T terms to stand. Just as with your TV/VCR example; I'm not certain that it would be legally possible to contract that restriction, but if it is allowed, I would think this is a gross error.

            • I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here because you did say government approved monopoly rather than a government sponsored one.


              The reason this is a big deal to me is that it's a central principle of a great deal of pseudo-libertarian propaganda that the only occasions on which any business gets a monopoly these days (or ever) are either if it has a really, really, good product that's the best, and recognised by consumers as such and is popular, or if governments have "granted" companies monopolies, as they have with patents and in the case of the Post Office.


              In AT&T's case, this is patently (arf arf, geddit?) false. AT&T had a monopoly so independent and concrete that they actually willingly accepted regulation, knowing that the alternative would have meant the destruction of the company, or its nationalisation. AT&T built a very expensive network, and because they were first, it became impossible to compete against them. This goes right to the present day where cable companies have rolled out similar infrastructure and are able to provide local phone service over it, but the costs are still too prohibitive and involve too much cooperation from a competitor for it to be viable for them. [Yes, AT&T Cable looked into it, and ditched the idea]


              Contracts are, by default, binding. It's the laws that governments introduce that weaken contracts, forcing parties to be reasonable and fair.


              And, personally, as I suspect you do too, I think it's a good thing when government does that. Unfortunately, the current political climate seems to live in a consensus where every government intervention into the markets is seen as a bad thing. Sometimes the propaganda and assumptions that build that consensus needs to be challenged.

  • According to this article [nwsource.com], AT&T Broadband will be offering Earthlink service to both Washington state and Boston, MA customers within the next few months.

    I'm betting they're probably doing that so they aren't forced to as a condition of merging with Comcast, but hey, I'll take it... Earthlink's service has to be better than attbi.com! "Sure, we'll take half your bandwidth away, screw your reliability and charge you the same amount every month!!"
  • I'm a RoadRunner customer and AOL/TimeWarner still has yet to open their network to someone other than RoadRunner.

    IIRC, the deadline was one year from the merger, and I think it's been well over that. So, WTF?
  • When FCC head Michael Parker was just a mere commissioner he was the only FCC commissioner who voted for the AOL/Time Warner merger to go through without any stipulations whatsoever. And considering his father Colin Powell (yes, the Colin Powell) served on the AOL board of directors at the time that shouldn't surprise you either.

    Thanks, Michael. Now AOL/Time Warner can continue on with their complete ownership of the fastest home-based broadband Internet service available.

    • fobbman Thanks, Michael. Now AOL/Time Warner can continue on with their complete ownership of the fastest home-based broadband Internet service available.

      Perhaps his reply should sound like this...

      Michael: "You are very welcome Mr. fobbman! Did you read the article at the top of the page at all? AOL-Time Warner will continue to provide competitive access becuase it was a condition of their merger, ordered by the government, just as it says above. Thus subjecting AOL to continued regulation just like a telco!"

      Michael: "Oh! By the way, my name is Michael POWELL [fcc.gov] *not* Parker."

  • Cable is NOT a Common Carrier (Score:5, Insightful)

    by markhb ( 11721 ) on Thursday March 14, 2002 @04:51PM (#3164236) Journal
    I think that the key difference between Cablecos and telcos is that Telcos, as far as POTS is concerned, are treated as common carriers: they have no editorial control over what goes over their lines, and have to file tariffs (rate cards) with the FCC and the state PUC which in turn need regulatory approval. Cablecos are not Common Carriers, so they get editorial control over what goes over their wires (ie, you don't get channels they don't supply, but in turn they have some liability for their content). The general feeling at the Federal and most state levels, from what I've seen, is that cable TV and internet services are not seen as sufficently vital to everyday life (as opposed to basic telephone service, which is considered to be such) for the providers to be granted Common Carrier status.
    • Whoh, that was so stupid that I have to quote the whole thing [slashdot.org] and reference it, because no one will believe it otherwise:

      I think that the key difference between Cablecos and telcos is that Telcos, as far as POTS is concerned, are treated as common carriers: they have no editorial control over what goes over their lines, and have to file tariffs (rate cards) with the FCC and the state PUC which in turn need regulatory approval. Cablecos are not Common Carriers, so they get editorial control over what goes over their wires (ie, you don't get channels they don't supply, but in turn they have some liability for their content). The general feeling at the Federal and most state levels, from what I've seen, is that cable TV and internet services are not seen as sufficently vital to everyday life (as opposed to basic telephone service, which is considered to be such) for the providers to be granted Common Carrier status.

      Editorial control from my ISP? I think not. Your view, and that at the moronic Federal and State levels, only make sense if your ISP is really an entertianment company pushing crap down your throat. That's not what the internet is for, and it is outrageous that the public right of way is being given to people who think differently.

      Get this! I'm not paying an ISP for yet another way to get Hollywood garbage. I'm paying my ISP for communications services. That my ISP would exercise "editorial" control by keeping me from serving, and that my ISP is a monopoly carrier is OBVIOULY against the public interest. My internet connection is worth more to me than my phone, my tv and all my magazine subscriptions as it has taken their place. My desire to contribute to the public domain is shared by countless others, who get it. Blocking our contributions will destroy the web as a forum of information creation and make it worthless, much like the poorly regulated Cable TV, and broadcast media.

      Now go tell your friends what I said so I don't have to kick their ass.

  • A possible reason for this (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LordZardoz ( 155141 ) on Thursday March 14, 2002 @04:58PM (#3164276)
    There is at least one possible reason for this. Cable ISP's are competing with DSL based ISP's. It could be that the Government powers that be are beleiving that this competition will keep prices down. Its an intresting thing when you think about it. There arent many other things that come to mind where two radically different technologies are competing to provide essentially the same service.

    The only other possibility that comes to mind is power generation (Coal vs Hydro vs Nuclear). And as far as I know, you usually only have one type of power plant providing power to a given area.

    END COMMUNICATION
  • i think there's enough competition just based in the fact that cable will have to compete against DSL. for competition, you only need one other player.

    just wait until ricochet [ricochet.com] gets back up and together. that'll make three.

    and personally, i'd rather have unlimited 175kbps wireless @ only $44.95 per month wouldn't you?

    furthermore - having several "providers" that share the same pipe really isn't competition. be realistic here.

  • Multiple Services (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cybermage ( 112274 ) on Thursday March 14, 2002 @05:05PM (#3164334) Homepage Journal
    I hope that the FCC is headed in a direction toward defining Internet Service as something distinct from Cable or Telephone Services.

    Each service should have its own rules based solely on what is right for that service. Then, if companies bundle services, they should be required to play by the rules for both simultaneously.

    Example: If you are providing telephone service, which you must unbundle for competitors, and you decide to offer Internet service over the same platform, then combined regulations should require that you provide unbundled access to competitors wishing to provide Internet service as well.

    If cable companies have a monopoly over their network by regulation, and there is no defined rules for Internet service, then there is no combination of rules to require that it be open.

    If we want Cable providers to offer a choice, we should seek an FCC/Congress definition of Internet service that is akin to Long Distance Telephone service. With such a definition, people who own the wire into your house would have to give you a choice of providers and be required to allow interconnection.
  • Cable and DSL are technologies that are both dead and very much alive, depending on how you look at them. They're alive in the sense that there's no faster way for a home user to get an Internet connection (aside from business-priced lines, i.e. T3s and optical), but dead in the sense that there's far faster technologies available, like Ethernet, that work just as well for the last mile. The problem is, there is no Ethernet last mile.

    So, towns, counties, and/or states should start investing in last-mile Ethernet, and let the ISPs provide service over the lines. That way, everyone can choose between any of the ISPs in America, instead of only choosing between their monopoly telco and monopoly cable company. I'd certainly pay $50 a month for municipal Ethernet, especially considering ATTBI just raised my rate to $45.95.
  • Can they require allowing other ISPs access to lines as part of a contract allowing a cable company franchise rights, or would FCC rules supercede that clause?
  • I haven't seen anyone else mention this yet so I'll raise the question:

    I live in Illinois and have SBC/Ameritech as my phone company. When I moved a couple miles north (still in the same county), they could get my phone service fixed for a month. As soon as they did, I switched over to AT&T Digital for my phones. My phones now un through the cable.

    So how is this going to affect my phones?
  • "Information Service" implies a one-to-many system. The true value of the Internet is not in making it into TV. The cable folks have a weird belief that the Internet's only value lies there- they've spent millions convincing themselves that nothing is changing, and now they figure they may as well refigure the world to match their lack of vision.

    People connecting to other people is the true value of the Internet. It is an enabler for communication and commerce, not a videofeed.

    As such, the phone and the Internet are merely iterations of the same thing. Why this logic was ignored is obvious:

    The FCC is owned. Guess by whom?

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close